This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Originally Posted by Conservative

The issue is tax revenue and who needs it more, the Federal Govt. or the taxpayers. In addition the issue is what people do with their money and what affect that has on the economy. Still waiting for you to explain why Govt. revenue grew after the Reagan tax cuts and how 17 million jobs were created.

Who needs it? Well, we do things with that tax money. Fight wars, build roads, pay for health care. Needs? Seems like the wrong word and the wrong frame you're trying to set up.

We have a deficit, and we still have wars to fight and bills to pay. So, like any family, we ahve to come together and seeks spending to cut and revenue to increase. This is rather basic.

Jobs or employment is a bit of a different issue, but the evidence is rather clear, tax cuts don't create jobs.

As for the 80's, did you look at the increase in military spending? Now that's a third reason you can add to the other two I gave you. Have you considered looking up the history of the 80's?

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes.

If you follow budget debates carefully, you will sometimes hear the same politician, in effect, making opposing arguments. When arguing in favor of tax (rate) cuts, a politician may make the supply-side claim that government revenues will increase as a result. When arguing against new or expanded government programs, however, they may argue that the new spending will require tax (rate) increases.

If they really believe the supply-side story, they should be arguing that increased government programs will require tax cuts, in order to increase tax revenues.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Who needs it? Well, we do things with that tax money. Fight wars, build roads, pay for health care. Needs? Seems like the wrong word and the wrong frame you're trying to set up.

We have a deficit, and we still have wars to fight and bills to pay. So, like any family, we ahve to come together and seeks spending to cut and revenue to increase. This is rather basic.

Jobs or employment is a bit of a different issue, but the evidence is rather clear, tax cuts don't create jobs.

As for the 80's, did you look at the increase in military spending? Now that's a third reason you can add to the other two I gave you. Have you considered looking up the history of the 80's?

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes.

If you follow budget debates carefully, you will sometimes hear the same politician, in effect, making opposing arguments. When arguing in favor of tax (rate) cuts, a politician may make the supply-side claim that government revenues will increase as a result. When arguing against new or expanded government programs, however, they may argue that the new spending will require tax (rate) increases.

If they really believe the supply-side story, they should be arguing that increased government programs will require tax cuts, in order to increase tax revenues.

Like all liberals you are being dishonest in your discussion of taxes. You don't seem to know what each tax funds so like all liberals you lump it into one pot and that is simply false. FIT doesn't fund roads, schools, police and fire like many liberals want to claim. FIT doesn't fund SS and Medicare so until you at least try to be honest in the discussion of taxes there is no room for debate here.

Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Originally Posted by Conservative

Like all liberals you are being dishonest in your discussion of taxes. You don't seem to know what each tax funds so like all liberals you lump it into one pot and that is simply false. FIT doesn't fund roads, schools, police and fire like many liberals want to claim. FIT doesn't fund SS and Medicare so until you at least try to be honest in the discussion of taxes there is no room for debate here.

Did you read at all what I wrote? I said: "Fight wars, build roads, pay for health care." Medicare is covered under health care.

Did you miss the fighting wars? Do states fight wars? Or is that the federal government?

Now roads, if you need help finding links about federal dollars being used to help states build roads, let me know. I'll gladly give you a few links.

So, as I see it, you're the one misrepresenting what is being said. Do you think it is dishonest for you to do that?

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

So being fiscally irresponsible is only excusable if your predecessor made the same error?

No, after we recover from the recession, we need to do the reverse of what we've been doing for the last 30 years.

Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Originally Posted by Catawba

Actually, they are polling 4 times more favorable than Congress. Which of the proposed 8 demands for Congress by the one OWS working group do you disagree with?

Yes. Which is irrelevant. The Tea Party at its similar peak was polling 4 times more favorably than what congress polls at as well. And even its current approval rating, 3+ years after its inception, it still is more than double congresses. Attempting to compare a political movement to a governmental entity as if they're analogs is an erroneous means of measurement. Not to mention, even if they poll better than congress, polling better than something that historically polls abysmally is damning with faint praise.

Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Did you read at all what I wrote? I said: "Fight wars, build roads, pay for health care." Medicare is covered under health care.

Did you miss the fighting wars? Do states fight wars? Or is that the federal government?

Now roads, if you need help finding links about federal dollars being used to help states build roads, let me know. I'll gladly give you a few links.

So, as I see it, you're the one misrepresenting what is being said. Do you think it is dishonest for you to do that?

Guess you didn't understand what I posted either since Medicare isn't funded by Federal Income taxes

Fighting was is the responsibility of the Federal govt and is funded by FIT. The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan is 1.4 trillion over 10 years or 140 billion a year. Deduct that from the 15.0 trillion and you have a 13.4 trillion dollar debt.

There would be no need to use FIT funds to pay for roads and infrastructure had the money collected from excise taxes on gasoline and diesel not been put into the General Fund of the Federal govt.

Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Bush doubled the National debt by providing tax cuts to the rich at the same time he started two unfunded wars and doubled spending on the military. We need to do the reverse to reduce our debt.

Actually, he increased the national debt due to two unfunded wars and increased spending on things like the military and government expansion like medicare and TSA. Had the Bush Tax cuts not gone into effect it would've still likely increased our debt. Know what wouldn't have? Not spending more than what we take in.

Correct, and if we just cut spending and did not eliminate the tax cuts for the rich, we'd still have increased debt. It is going to take the opposite of what we have done over the last 30 years of trickle down economics.

Actually, if we cut spending we could stop increasing debt by that alone. All it would take is to stop spending more than we spend. Even if we eliminate tax cuts for the rich, if we continue to spend more than we bring in...which we are likely to do as you admitted even if we eliminate the tax cuts on the rich...we are still going to run up the debt.

A budget has two components, revenue and expenses.

Actually, a budget is one component that functions off of a second component. You have a set amount of revenue, and a GOOD budget bases the expenses around said revenue. Our government, under Bush AND Obama, seems incapable of doing that.

Increasing revenue in no way, shape, or form guarantees that you won't run a debt. Not spending more than you take in absolutely does assure you won't run a debt.

If you cut revenues, without a corresponding cut in spending you have debt, which is what we have had with every Republican Administration for the last 30 years.

Yes, you're correct. If you cut revenues, without cutting spending, you have debt...because you didn't set up your budget in accordance to what your revenues are. This is the issue we've had with EVERY House (who passes the budget) and President (who signs the budget) combination for the past 4 decades save for once when we had a Republican House and a Democratic President.

The tax cuts that the Republicans held unemployment benefits hostage for, that a majority of Democrats voted against, is that the tax cut you mean?

Yep, the one Obama signed off on, supported, and stated needed to be passed because you can't raise taxes during this kind of economy, despite the fact he had majority control in both houses. That one.

Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Yes. Which is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to you perhaps. Not so much to a third of the country who support the OWS.

The Tea Party at its similar peak was polling 4 times more favorably than what congress polls at as well. And even its current approval rating, 3+ years after its inception, it still is more than double congresses.

And as I remember, it had quite an effect on the 2010 election.

Attempting to compare a political movement to a governmental entity as if they're analogs is an erroneous means of measurement. Not to mention, even if they poll better than congress, polling better than something that historically polls abysmally is damning with faint praise.

I would argue the OWS has increased public debate about the economic injustice in this country. Look at all the OWS stories in the news, look at all the OWS threads on this forum, look at you discussing the OWS issues here with me!

Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

But if spending was one of the causes of the recession, then why do you feel it is the answer?

You misunderstood my meaning. Unfunded spending on the military and tax cuts to the rich over 30 years created most of our debt. We will need to do the opposite to address that debt.

Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb